韓国における専門職養成システムの変化

―「医学専門大学院」と「法学専門大学院」の導入をめぐる政策分析―

抄録

  In this paper, the establishment of medical and law schools in the Republic of Korea are analyzed from the standpoint of institutional change. In the Republic of Korea, medical schools and law schools have been established since 2005 and 2009, respectively, with the Japanese system having been used since the pre-war period. The Japanese system appears to have been substituted with an American-style approach in light of the establishment of two distinct, professional schools. How might we come to understand the theoretical underpinnings of these changes?

  It is important to define ‘institutional change’ as a composite concept having two components, the change in qualifying requirements and the change of common expectations. ‘Institutional change’ occurs when an actors related to the institution recognize a change of environment. Actors who recognize this change then try to adapt to their new environs. In this process, there are conflicts among the various attendants or stakeholders who are related to the institution. When these conflicts occur, we can observe interplay of ideologies, contexts and features of a society, the impact of foreign countries, and leadership personalities related to these conflicts. In these processes, the revision of requirements and the formulation of common expectations occurs.

  To examine the conflicts related to institutional change, it is useful to refer to the power balance among actors related to the institution. The concept of ‘the regime of the training profession’ is applied in this study. This concept comprises three components in opposition to one another: government, professionals and the higher education system. Around the regime, there is society and a world that is recognized by the different components of the regime. ‘Institutional change’ is formed through a power dynamic and discussions about issues related to formalities.

  Two regimes serve as the foci of this paper: ‘training doctors’ and ‘training lawyers’. While distinct in and of themselves, the two regimes share mutual features. These include expectations of government and justifications for the establishment of the two schools, including (1) training ‘worldwide professions’ and (2) to reduce the effects entrance examinations from the undergraduate level upwards. The government expected the establishment of the two schools to be the solution to these problems for a variety of reasons. In the regime of training doctors, the government has heavy influence over medical schools through higher education policy, especially regarding the direction, supervision and administrative approval of, and financial support for, university institutions. Professors of medicine opposed and resisted these influences, but have been unable to articulate their arguments officially. Schools of medicine have therefore changed steadily since 2005.

  In contrast to the regime of training doctors, in the regime of training lawyers, a powerful legal profession was initially able to prevent the establishment of law schools though opposition to government policy. However, in the regime of training lawyers, the legal profession was critical in facilitating institutional change. Since 2003, the legal profession has led the reform of the judicial system and has come to adopt a more positive approach to the establishment of law schools and the Law School Act was approved in the Diet in 2007. The Act changed a key aspect of the regime of training, limiting the number of applicants admitted to law schools. While legal profession and nonlegal actors opposed each other on this issue, the legal profession has the ultimate authority to limit the number of law school admissions. In the lawyer training regime, there is one important feature related to the international sphere worthy of attention. (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)